Archive for the 'Proposition 8' Tag Under 'Letters To The Editor' Category

ORANGE, John Mace: The recent 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruling on gay marriage will do little to bridge the social divide caused by this issue. The divide is too great to be soothed by forcing any side to sign the wedding guest book for the other. Sometimes co-existence is not possible. Sometimes a reformation is needed to allow an institution to continue. I think it's time we adults accept the inevitable social change and try to, as best as possible, come to an arrangement that we keep us from railing against each other, at least publicly.

LAKE FOREST, Jerry Miller: I read in the Register of a memorial ceremony to be held for Marine Cpl. Christopher G. Singer who recently gave his life in Afghanistan. He was 23-years-old when he died, and had wanted to be a Marine ever since he was 7 years old. He left behind a 21-year-old wife and a young child.

This young hero grew up in Lake Forest. I did not know Cpl. Singer or any of his family. Yet, for some reason, I felt compelled to go and honor him. I have never attended such a memorial service.

Upon arriving at the church I observed dozens of police cars and motorcycles and even more civilian motorcycles, yes, the Patriot Guard Riders were there in force. There would be no interruption of this solemn occasion by fringe groups of religious zealots, or anyone else for that matter. They would see to that. And the parking lot was full of vehicles. I arrived in time to only catch the tail end of the church service but what followed next was one of the more moving experiences of my life.

Those in attendance, over a thousand according to the Register story, were asked to form a cordon of honor from the door of the church to the hearse as is apparently customary. Of course there were the Marines in their dress blues. There were also veterans of all shapes, sizes and ages. And there were civilians, men, women and children. And interspersed throughout were numerous members of the Patriot Guard Riders in their iconic biker garb holding the flag of their beloved country. People were chatting quietly and sometimes uncomfortably as they shouldn't to do on such an occasion.

ORANGE, John Stewart, Mr. Stewart was a member of the legal team serving Prop. 8 proponents in Perry v. Schwarzenegger: Californians have become accustomed to a few people in black robes deciding they know better than the electorate. First, in 2008, by a bare 4-3 ruling, the California Supreme Court struck Proposition 22, a voter-approved initiative that limited marriage to one man and one woman. Then California voters passed Proposition 8, which had the same language as Prop. 22, only this time as an amendment to the State Constitution. When the state Supreme Court upheld Prop. 8, the opponents went to federal court, and found a sympathetic homosexual judge that ruled Prop. 8 violated the U.S. Constitution.

Now, in a 2-1 ruling, the oft-reversed 9th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the lower court, essentially saying there was no rational basis for Prop. 8 to take away the “right” for same-sex couples to marry. The 89-page opinion, written by Judge Stephen Reinhardt, the most reversed federal judge in the history of America, fails to give proper weight to the fact that the “right” to same-sex marriage was a right imposed by a 4-3 court opinion that only existed for 143 days until the electorate approved Prop 8. It was the effect of Prop. 8 eliminating this “right” that was the basis for the 9th Circuit ruling, not some yet-to-be-found “right” to same-sex marriage in the U.S. Constitution.

The issue of whether same-sex marriage is a fundamental right under the U.S. Constitution is for another day, when the U.S. Supreme Court decides to weigh in. Until then, the message is clear – all men are created equal, but if you wear a black robe, you are more equal than others, including over seven million Californians who approved Prop. 8.

HAWTHORNE, Barry Levy: In a 2-1 decision, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals overturned the will of the people that voted on Proposition 8 (marriage to be defined as one man and one woman).

I'm not going to take a position the merits of this case but want to challenge everyone to question whether a 2-1 or a Supreme Court 5-4 decision is something that we should be happy with.

To think that laws are so complex that a simple majority of mere humans can determine the way the rest of the people must act or behave is something that needs to be questioned. Because a simple majority, with a simple challenge by one person, can have a law come before a court again to be changed.

Personally, I would like to see a minimum of five judges to hear an appeal and a super majority to change the will of the people. With five judges, the decision would have to be 4-1, and should something go to the Supreme Court, the super majority would mean decisions would have to be at least 6-3.

HUNTINGTON BEACH, Barry Wasserman: Nowhere was it stated in the article, “Cathedral ministry has time to move” [Front Page, Nov. 19], why U.S. bankruptcy Judge Robert Kwan's ruling lead to the purchase of the Crystal Cathedral property by the Roman Catholic Church. I thought that the highest qualified bidder of the property, such as Chapman University's offer of $59 million, trumped that of the Catholic Church's $57.5 million. It isn't clear why the judge took into account the Schuller family members' support for the church and that of the Crystal Cathedral's board when the demise of the church itself was due to the mismanagement of funds by the Schuller family.

Congregants of Robert H. Schuller's ministry were outraged that the Catholic Church had stepped in to take over the premises that were once Protestant, which possessed an architectural glass structure renowned the world over.

Some Catholics were also outraged that the diocese would spend an exorbitant amount on real estate, when that money could be used for Roman Catholic followers who need help.

Roman Catholic Bishop Tod Brown commented after the hearing that he believes the diocese has fulfilled its legal obligations to victims of sex abuse and continues to do so. Is this the type of rhetoric used by the hierarchy of the church to absolve the moral failings by hundreds of pedophile priests the world over?

-WESTMINSTER, George A. Kuck: I am disappointed in the Register editors for publishing the ad hominem attacks by Ed Pyle [“A ‘Party of No' debate,” June 15] on the Republicans running for president. His partisan attacks are beginning to sound like an old-fashioned cracked '78 record. He needs to attack problems, such as the solutions to fixing our economy, rather than the people proposing the solutions.

______

-HUNTINGTON BEACH, Kathleen Parker: What does letter-writer Ed Pyle hope to accomplish by his tirade about the Republican candidates [“A ‘Party of No' debate,” June 15]? At least those people have the moral courage to stand up and be counted. They do not sit on the sidelines and throw invectives through the morning read. How does this add to the public discourse?

-WESTMINSTER, T. Jeske: If Gov. Jerry Brown and the Democrats in the California Legislature manage to get the Republicans to go along with putting the five-year tax extension on the coming ballot, be ready for the horrendous onslaught of threats, intimidation, lies, and scare tactics that the Dems will throw at taxpayers and voters.

Here's some food for thought for those voters who contemplate supporting the extension: Five years from now, if there is still a Democrat in the governor's office and/or the Legislature is still run by Democrats (God forbid), they will say, “Um, gee folks, we miscalculated a wee bit and we really need to extend these taxes again but this time we need to do it for 10 years, and also we have to double all of the taxes.”

Do California voters really understand that there is enough money for the state, but Democrats refuse to spend it in the right place? Do they understand that Democrats are bought and paid for by the special interests, government unions, and the good-old-boy network of termed-out politicians and bureaucrats residing on hundreds of panels, commissions, and boards all over this state? Do the voters also not understand that we have literally been sold out by Gov. Brown and the Democrats in the Legislature? We Americans have been thrown to the wolves by these same Democrats. Please vote no on the tax extension.

-ORANGE, John Stewart: The definition of marriage in California remains unsettled despite the clear will of the people. First the California Legislature spoke, defining marriage as between one man and one woman.

Then in the year 2000 the people of California spoke, with 61.4 percent voting for Proposition 22 that defined marriage as between a man and a woman. After four state Supreme Court justices decided they knew better than the people of California, striking down Prop. 22 by a 4-3 vote, the people spoke again. This time, more than 7 million Californians voted for Proposition 8, which placed the traditional definition of marriage into the California constitution.

The opponents of traditional marriage, despite the will of the people, challenged Prop. 8 in state court, but lost. They then ran to federal court on the same day our state Supreme Court announced it had upheld Prop. 8.

Email your letters to letters@ocregister.com. Please provide your name, city of residence and phone number (phone numbers will not be published). Letters of about 200 words will be given preference. Letters will be edited for length, grammar and clarity.

Create your own flip-cam letter by recording yourself delivering a message or a funny one-liner. You have 30 seconds or so to get your point across, so make it fast, and make it good. Keep it clean. No blue humor need apply. We will post the best of what we receive. Email your videos to letters@ocregister.com.